oppn parties Political Funding Reforms: This Government is Not Serious

News Snippets

  • 2nd ODI: Rohit Sharma roars back to form with a scintillating ton as India beat England by 4 wickets in a high scoring match in Cuttack
  • Supreme Court will appoint an observer for the mayoral poll in Chandigarh
  • Government makes it compulsory for plastic carry bag makers to put a QR or barcode with their details on such bags
  • GBS outbreak in Pune leaves 73 ill with 14 on ventilator. GBS is a rare but treatable autoimmune disease
  • Madhya Pradesh government banned sale and consumption of liquor at 19 religious sites including Ujjain and Chitrakoot
  • Odisha emerges at the top in the fiscal health report of states while Haryana is at the bottom
  • JSW Steel net profit takes a massive hit of 70% in Q3
  • Tatas buy 60% stake in Pegatron, the contractor making iPhone's in India
  • Stocks return to negative zone - Sensex sheds 329 points to 76190 and Nifty loses 113 points to 23092
  • Bumrah, Jadeja and Yashasvi Jaiswal make the ICC Test team of the year even as no Indian found a place in the ODI squad
  • India take on England in the second T20 today at Chennai. They lead the 5-match series 1-0
  • Ravindra Jadeja excels in Ranji Trophy, takes 12 wickets in the match as Saurashtra beat Delhi by 10 wickets. All other Team India stars disappoint in the national tournament
  • Madhya Pradesh HC says collectors must not apply NSA "under political pressure and without application of mind"
  • Oxfam charged by CBI over violation of FCRA
  • Indian students in the US have started quitting part-time jobs (which are not legally allowed as per visa rules) over fears of deportation
Manipur Chief Minister Biren Singh resigns after meeting Home Minister Amit Shah and BJP chief J P Nadda /////// President's Rule likely in Manipur
oppn parties
Political Funding Reforms: This Government is Not Serious

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2017-03-23 11:41:26

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
Buoyed by the lack of corruption in the upper echelons of this NDA government, one was expecting that it will bring about transparency in political funding and election spending, the two most opaque things that lead to corruption and worse. When Arun Jaitley had reduced the amount of cash political parties could receive as donation from a single source in his 2017 budget proposals, one was further enthused that more important reforms would be undertaken in due course.

But belying all hopes, Jaitley has introduced an amendment in his budget proposals that will make donations even more opaque. Hitherto, companies could donate up to 7.5% of their average net profits in the three immediately preceding years to one or more political parties. By proposing an amendment to the Companies Act, 2013, the finance minister seeks to withdraw the cap and the restriction.

Further, what troubles more is that companies will no longer be obliged to disclose the name of the political party to which they have made the donation. This will lead to big corruption as ruling parties can ask for donation to party funds (not needed to be disclosed and hence untraceable) in return for bestowing favours like licenses to companies.

Also, since funding through Election Bonds can be done without disclosing the names, companies should be barred from purchasing more than a certain amount of Bonds every year. In their case, it should be mandatory to disclose the name of the party to whom they paid through such Bonds. Ideally, it will be better if the Election Bond route is kept open only for individuals or non-corporate entities.

The intention of reforming political funding is to smash the cosy nexus between political parties and big business. This amendment is going to achieve the opposite. Hence, it should be withdrawn immediately. Some experts have pointed out that the section in the Companies Act could have been deleted ‘inadvertently.’ If it is indeed so, it should be restored without delay. It is fine if the government wishes to remove the cap, but disclosure norms should stay.